or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by TheOtherGeoff

 Well a topped out iMac is current 2800BP(with VAT) or $4500USD before state sales taxes.It's in Mac Pro territory. and really, I think that's what Apple wants (or it thinks it's largest set of High End consumers want).   
1) it was preannounced in June to be a 2013 delivery, so the timing of your timing comment is odd;-)2) 'most businesses' don't use a Mac Pro as a desktops...  this is a niche product in a niche market. 3) businesses that do use Mac Pros have been keeping $$ in the budget since before June;-)... even large businesses have their 4th quarter spending splurges to make sure they don't make 'too much' money in a particular quarter [less about taxes, and more about keeping...
driving light to the screen is the major power suck.  you have 4X more LCDs, therefore 4X more signalling to fire the same pixels.But that said, the real power savings comes from more efficient LED backlighting, which one would assume has improved over the past year.
agreed.  the a7 on the iPad Mini RD, and the A7X with touchID on the 10" iPad. Then the question comes... M7 chip?   it makes a heckuva lot more sense to put the m7 into the mini (as it would be something that people would carry while 'moving' and therefore may want to use it as a 'motion measure' device.).  If it saves power (yet, there is plenty of battery so to speak in the iPads), and not a space consideration (again, space), then why not?
 err... the Mini will most likely be the 'c' of the iPad family.   the 'iPad' is the 's' version
hence the importance of the ASeries chip in the grand [4 year] scheme of things.  It's the only leverage against the intel tax. Lower prices on an iMac really are only derived at the moment on the LED screen, Disk,  and the memory.   Moving to the high end haswell may help in making the cooling less complicated and/or the entire unit lighter (40-$50 of the cost of the unit is shipping[every piece multiple times], and less weight/volume the lower the net ship price…  An old...
and that's how analysts work.
 I think the 'two decades' has evolved to 'consumer -grade' computing.   Tallest, what you're arguing is for the 'current PC' user.   The iPhone wasn't for the 'current smartphone user'  it was for the people who wanted a what a smartphone offered, but didn't want to think about it. So let's not focus on the morons.  Let's focus on their kids, or people who literally haven't been spending $200 on computers every 2 years (2nd and 3rd world).   What's the computer for...
no… Macky, you're much too condescending to our 'anal'ysts.   They will conclude Apple was stupid and grossly underestimated manufacturing and/or supply chain capacity for the 5s (because they dedicated too much capacity to the 5c, which they make way too little money on) and cannot meet demand, those buyers demanding a 5s will flock to other phone sets (which until there was no 5s available were unsatisfactory).
yeah  that's a nit isn't the 'Atom' line their mobile chip set... Aren't all those netbooks considered mobile devices... or is it just tablets and phones and high end mp3 players?  (and are gameboy's and personal gaming devices included?  what about all those embedded processors in cars... aren't they 'mobile'?)
New Posts  All Forums: